OK, so Dubya has had his Terrorist Threat Barometer (http://www.tsa.gov/graphics/images/dhs-threat.jpg) for an eternity now to scare people with, right? Well, as we know, there are those among the global warming 'believers' who also like to scare people (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=178520) - lookie what they made (http://www.meteoalarm.eu/):D!

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/Weather.jpg
The map with the colour legends superimposed.

Yes, people, it's a threat barometer for our very own - for us weather-beaten Europeans, at least! With its little icons and separate countries, it goes into even further detail than the Terrorist counterpart.

Seriosly, though, this... just seems weird to me. Why on Earth do I need this map anyhow? If I'm planning to go someplace in Europe, can't I just check their weather reports? A map full of red and orange spots just serves to scare people. And the commentary sounds as if it was taken out of The Swarm by Frank Schätzing:
Red:
The weather is very dangerous. Exceptionally intense meteorological phenomena have been forecast. Major damage and accidents are likely, in many cases with threat to life and limb, over a wide area. Keep frequently informed about detailed expected meteorological conditions and risks. Follow orders and any advice given by your authorities under all circumstances, be prepared for extraordinary measures.Text in italics sounds very much like what the Department of Defense would order in case of 'severe' terrorist threats. I prefer 'Yellow', though:
Yellow:
The weather is potentially dangerous. The weather phenomena that have been forecast are not unusual, but be attentive if you intend to practice activities exposed to meteorological risks. Keep informed about the expected meteorological conditions and do not take any avoidable risk.
Paraphrased: 'No danger, but please be scared anyways. Thank you'.

In short, much of the imagery, and the general wording of much of the site, appears to be designed from the scratch to scare people. I could give several more examples.

Gimme a break.

Totenkopf

07-20-2007, 12:06 AM

I agree and concur. Now, is this to be udated daily like smog alerts or "ozone action" days?

Jae Onasi

07-20-2007, 12:51 AM

We've had something like that for years here in the states. It's called the Storm Prediction Center (http://www.spc.noaa.gov/). Cool site, too, with watch/warning listings, radar, satellite, probability diagrams, everything a weather/adrenaline junkie could ever want. :)

SilentScope001

07-20-2007, 01:30 AM

Oh no. Oh no.

Hungrary is in trouble! It's RED! We have to do something now, before it's too late!

Seriously, this is a great way to inspire fear in people! Good job guys! Fight the war on global warming!

Sabretooth

07-20-2007, 01:50 AM

Looks more like a Nazi battle map. The Scandinavians are always cool. :xp:

Good for you Europeans, I guess.

mimartin

07-20-2007, 10:33 AM

Fight the war on global warming! I thought we already surrendered. ;)

Question: If they are expecting bad weather in or around Paris do they make the entire country of France red. If it is storming in the north do you still get the warning if you live in Marseille where it is sunny?

I just can’t see this being very effective and believe it will have the opposite effect then what was intended (much like the terror alerts). After the fifteenth time that you are under red alert and it is a perfectly sunny day outside you will stop paying it any attention and go back to the local weather person (who is also usually wrong).

Dagobahn Eagle

07-20-2007, 10:56 AM

Looks more like a Nazi battle map. The Scandinavians are always cool. Long live the Norse-Portuguese Coalition! The Azores are on our side:D!

Hungary is in trouble! It's RED! We have to do something now, before it's too late!It's too late. Check the map again. The Commies are advancing west into Austria, which is now also red:(.

Question: If they are expecting bad weather in or around Paris do they make the entire country of France red.Yes. All of Austria is currently red even though only the North-East is red and the rest actually is orange and yellow.

If it is storming in the north do you still get the warning if you live in Marseille where it is sunny?Well, clicking on a country breaks it into smaller sections, which you in turn can hover your mouse cursor over and get a more detailed report.

PoiuyWired

07-20-2007, 12:47 PM

You know what, when I first see the site, I thought it is about METEOR ALARM.

And I was wondering how the hack are they going to predict rocks/transformers falling from the sky.

Nancy Allen``

07-20-2007, 08:52 PM

You don't need a threat meter to tell how bad it is. Just go and see for yourself.

Jae Onasi

07-20-2007, 11:30 PM

Question: If they are expecting bad weather in or around Paris do they make the entire country of France red.Yes. All of Austria is currently red even though only the North-East is red and the rest actually is orange and yellow.
Well, I guess that means the US will be red all the time, because there's always bad weather going on _somewhere_. My part of the country is probably mostly green--we don't get 'red weather' nearly often enough for my taste.
*Jae wanders off to go phone 1-800-TORNADO to go on a tornado chase vacation....*

MdKnightR

07-21-2007, 01:31 AM

Any of you ever heard George Carlin's take on all this environmental stuff? If not, here you go.....

The Planet is Fine by George Carlin

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ****ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the ****ing planet?

I'm getting tired of that ****. Tired of that ****. I'm tired of ****ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a **** about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ****ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your ****, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...a*****e.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

Totenkopf

07-21-2007, 02:40 AM

Nice to see even he hasn't been taken in. But if you really want to listen to Carlin at one of his funnier moments, check out his take on solving the prison issue in America. Positively hilarious.

Rabish Bini

07-21-2007, 08:57 AM

Yay! Croatia's white.
Anyway, the point of this map is?

Reclaimer

07-21-2007, 09:00 AM

We've had something like that for years here in the states. It's called the Storm Prediction Center (http://www.spc.noaa.gov/). Cool site, too, with watch/warning listings, radar, satellite, probability diagrams, everything a weather/adrenaline junkie could ever want. :)

Yes, and our flash sites beat your 2D sites Europe!

America!

Yes, I know we suck. Tell me something new.

Dagobahn Eagle

07-21-2007, 11:15 AM

Any of you ever heard George Carlin's take on all this environmental stuff?Wow. One person who truly has no clue of what's going on. As a side note, it'd probably sound a lot better when spoken by him.

Yes, and our flash sites beat your 2D sites Europe!;D

SilentScope001

07-21-2007, 02:15 PM

George Carlin seems a bit, uh, unfunny and repeats stuff far too much. Thee basic idea may be good and needs to be rephrased more understandably though.

Dagobahn Eagle

07-21-2007, 03:14 PM

I'm getting tired of that ****. Tired of that ****. I'm tired of ****ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths.So black environmentalists are home free?

Totenkopf

07-21-2007, 04:54 PM

George Carlin seems a bit, uh, unfunny and repeats stuff far too much. Thee basic idea may be good and needs to be rephrased more understandably though.

Actually, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I think he was much funnier about a generation ago. His later stuff sometimes seems more like a political screed than a comedy bit.

So black environmentalists are home free? Dunno...Google him, then send him an email and see if he replies. ;) However, the targets of ridicule do usually happen to be the most vocal proponents in any group of people (as I'm sure you're well aware). Who knows, maybe orientals and latinos escape his noose as well.... :hang1:

MdKnightR

07-21-2007, 06:26 PM

Wow. One person who truly has no clue of what's going on. As a side note, it'd probably sound a lot better when spoken by him.

;D

It is a lot better spoken. Anyone interested in seeing a video can very easily find it on the web. The video is a little longer than the excerpt that I posted earlier. I just can't post a link to it due to forum policy (language).

And I think he has more than a clue. ;) It makes perfect sense.

Dagobahn Eagle

07-23-2007, 06:23 PM

Actually, his post is largely ad hominem and rhetoric, and very little if any constructive content. It also seems to largely attack the saving of species and environmentalism in general, not global warming, and definitely not fear tactics or the map, which actually was the topic for the thread.

[...]The greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ****ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the ****ing planet?Yes. We're going to slow down global warming as it's a real, imminent threat to us, which thus takes priority.

You know what [the environmentalists] are interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.Narrow, unenlightened ad hominem doesn't impress me. Yes, I, like most environmentalists, am doing this to save human lives, not to 'save' an anthropomorphic planet. As a matter of fact, I haven't heard the cry of 'Save the planet' since, well, I don't know how long. In fact, it can be argued that EVERY good deed is done for self-gratification, to make the brain's neurons fire off reward signals to make us feel better. Doesn't matter. Global warming is a problem that needs fixing, and I applaud the people out to fix it. It's like back when I was volunteering for an animal shelter in Houston - I don't think the animals there cared much about WHY the staff and volunteers saved their hides.

As a side note, it's not that we 'some day in the future might be personally inconvenienced'. The only reason that the global warming movement is actually kicking off now and seriously gaining momentum is that we are being 'personally inconvenienced' RIGHT NOW. As in killed by the tens of thousands by irregularities in an otherwise predictable climate (severe heat waves where there never were severe heat waves before, etc.). The climate has always been chaotic, yes, but it's been predictable, too, in that we know just about what to expect from it, and when to expect it: Come winter there'll be heaps of snow. We can't say how much or when, 'cause it's a chaotic system, but we know it'll be there, as that's been the trend for an eternity. So we prepare for it. It's not like that anymore, though. Now there are floods, hurricanes, snow, and drought where there previously was none. The climate is changing, and it's becoming more unpredictable, which is not a good thing.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ****ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great.You can compare all you want. Compare the Rape of Nanking to the Holocaust and say it was nothing serious. I truly don't care.

Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic?I don't care about the arithmetic as it's pointless rhetoric, as opposed to useful logic. Lots of things have been around for an eternity before they were torn down in an instant. Hiroshima was founded in 1589 and lasted for half a millennium before a nuke reduced it to a heap of rubble in seconds. How's that for arithmetic? A 500 years old city destroyed by a technology that'd been around for only a few months? Nah. Surely you're jesting.

Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!Argument from incredulity, again. I can just as well deny the effectiveness of the a-bomb by saying that 'Hiroshima has been around for 500 years, and one little bomb is going to wipe it out! Don't make me laugh!'.

It's been proven that human activity is having an effect on natural global warming, to the point where we've created a danger for ourselves. Incredulity aside, it's a scientific fact.

And last but not least, his point is largely a strawman. Lots of the things he mentioned were disastrous for life on the planet. Of course the planet itself is still there, no one is fearing otherwise unless you can produce one single scientist or activists who thinks global warming will litterally destroy the Earth. What we're worried about is, as was said (by me and him) is not 'saving the planet', but saving the species on the planet, primarily ourselves. We are, as he said, seeking a 'clean habitat'.

We're going away. Pack your ****, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that.I don't see how this is relevant at all. It does not disprove global warming, nor that we're fueling it, nor that it's a threat to us. It just points out that one day, we'll be extinct anyway, as if that had some sort of bearing on what we should do to save our hides now.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing [and so on] I fail to see how this is relevant, either. Is he implying that we deserve our fate, since we're 'dumb' enough to live in dangerous areas?

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system.It's been proven scientifically that global warming is a self-fueling process. Anthropomorphizing the planet as a self-healing entity is not going to do us much good when scientific fact tells us otherwise.

[...] And if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth.Appeal to nature.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started?I'm... confused.

Er, yes, I do. It's called the consequences of global warming. That's why we're out there to 'save the planet' in the first place.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.I truly don't know what to make of him after reading this last part. Is he restating his claim that we shouldn't worry about global warming because we'll be gone some day anyway and that it doesn't matter much to the big picture?

SilentScope001

07-23-2007, 07:24 PM

Uh, eh, bah. Comedy is so unappericated. Humor is supposed to be a strawman. It's supposed to take something and make fun of it by protraying it in a light that makes it seem stupid or idiotic. His humor is the same as humor from The Onion or Jon Steward or anyone else. You don't go and deconstruct humor in an attempt to rebuttal it. That defeats the whole purpose of a joke.

"Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!"

"Are you silly? You do realize that you just condoned the use of chicken crossing roads! Where has that been documented? And there are many other reasons why you can cross the road without having to get to the other side!"

Let me try something here that might be a bit more funnier than George Carlin's post:

People who want to 'save the Earth' are really just wanting to save their own selves from exicition. Of course, they know that, everyone know that. It's just, you know, implied. We wannna live. It's human nature.

The Earth doesn't need us. In fact, well, we could be a threat. Nuclear war, ya know? Or what if we create a machine that blows both us up and the Earth? Well, we would destroy the Earth, and the Earth would be quite unhappy. We're glad that current companies believe that blowing up the Earth with a superlaser will lead to decreased profits in the short-term, but once some mega-corporation gets the idea to turn the destruction of the Earth into an marketing extravangza, you know that the Earth's days are numbered.

But global warming? It only increases the tempuature. It will 'only' cause floods. It will only cause this, it will only cause that. Well, true, innocent animals other than humans will be hurt-but the Earth doesn't exactly care about them either.

Neither does the sole object responsible for global warming. The Sun. It is the one sending radiation, it is the one that is beaming down sunlight through the ozone hole. Why aren't we declaring sanctions against the Sun? Why haven't the Sun signed the Kyoto Treaty?

Alright. Alright. I'm fine. We know that the Sun and the Earth are not living. We don't blame Hurricane Katrina, for, well, Hurrican Katrina, right? Nature is not in control of itself, we are. And if we don't do anything to save ourselves from a nature utterly indifferent to us, especially when we damage that nature that help made us in the first place thereby causing for an increased risk of that damage killing us...well who will save us?

The bad news is that if the Earth and the Sun doesn't care, and that if we don't gain their trust and support in repairing the damages of global warming, then it may be that, despite all our efforts in fixing the mess, well, Nature will stop us from doing so. And then what?

We will assign blame to politicans, to activists, to leaders, to indurstalists, to anyone, to help deal with the crisis. But in the end, it won't bring back the dead killed by Nature. Oh well. Our fault really.

Why? Because Nature has oppressed us forever. We never elected Nature you know. Nature has treated us with disrespect. Its rule is artibray and stupid. Nobody could predict it. If Nature wants to cause an earthquake and kill off San Fransicio, it can. Nature supports the dominance of males over females, in direct violation of UN resolutions. And there is nothing stopping it. Remember the slogan: "All evil needs to win is for good people to do nothing"? Well, we are doing nothing, and evil is winning.

The fact that Nature is not a living being should not excuse it from the sins that they have done, right? We do excuse Nature, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. Just because we can excuse a mad doctor because he is mad does not mean we will respect and embrace the Frankenstein monsters he spawned.

We need to run away from Earth. And not go to some stupid other planet. We need a space station, regulated only by us. We control water supply, food supply, disaster supply. I mean, if we regulate our enviroment, rather than letting the cold, unfeeling force of Nature do it, at least we are able to lynch the b****** who is responsible when things go wrong, and then automatically fix it.

Um...help? It lacks "funny".

MdKnightR

07-24-2007, 01:55 AM

Thanks, SilentScope001! You beat me to it! The whole point of Carlin (or any satirist) is indeed to show you the lunacy behind a given idea. Sure it doesn't specify "GLOBAL WARMING" within the monologue, but it doesn't have to. The sheer fact that it possessed Degobahn Eagle to rebut it point-by-point shows that it struck a nerve.

But out of the scope of comedy, I have serious doubts about the true impact of humans on the whole global warming thing. 30 years ago, environmentalists were concerned with global cooling. There is no scientific "fact" that global warming is caused by humans. In fact, there are many scientists that refute the findings reported by IPCC. Their beliefs range from absolute denial to finding benefits to global warming. Many of these individuals have been shunned by the global warming climate gurus to the point of cruelty. Timothy Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, has received no less than five death threats since he voiced his skepticism on the matter. Sounds an awful lot like the way that communist countries treat those that speak out against their government.

Here are a few links to some video that I feel will be helpful...

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag)
Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2S5OGS-g9g)
Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufPWwsUu_k)
Part 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Ku1_gruaQ)
Part 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalexeUwtNw)
Part 6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvkX3jNjPK8)
Part 7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=660hjo4f6Ig)
Part 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0c9K4QGIMY)

Now, before you go flying off the handle, I was once a very gung-ho environmentalist and active animal rights activist. Heck, I'm even still a vegetarian. Are you that dedicated to environmental causes? All I ask is please open your mind to the other side of the debate.

Totenkopf

07-24-2007, 06:34 AM

Now, before you go flying off the handle, I was once a very gung-ho environmentalist and active animal rights activist. Heck, I'm even still a vegetarian. Are you that dedicated to environmental causes? All I ask is please open your mind to the other side of the debate.

:hor: Heresy, apostasy, off with your head :axe1:

Seriously, though, I can understand that humor is basically a personal thing, often relying on style of delivery as much as the actual content itself. But there are no "sacred cows" (sorry to any of our Hindu brethren, bad pun intended :p ) in comedy. I can appreciate that people feel strongly about things, DE, but c'mon. I think it may be that kind of "dedication" that Carlin was poking fun at in the first place.

Jae Onasi

07-24-2007, 08:40 AM

Humor is supposed to be a strawman....You don't go and deconstruct humor in an attempt to rebuttal it. That defeats the whole purpose of a joke.

"Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side!"

"Are you silly? You do realize that you just condoned the use of chicken crossing roads! Where has that been documented? And there are many other reasons why you can cross the road without having to get to the other side!"

:rofl:

SilentScope wins the award for most humorous post of the thread. :D

Dagobahn Eagle

07-24-2007, 01:52 PM

The whole point of Carlin (or any satirist) is indeed to show you the lunacy behind a given idea.Which it utterly failed to do:).

The sheer fact that it possessed Degobahn Eagle to rebut it point-by-point shows that it struck a nerve.The reason I rebutted his satire is that I've heard his points spouted seriously as arguments by other people. I do my best to stop misconceptions.

But out of the scope of comedy, I have serious doubts about the true impact of humans on the whole global warming thing. 30 years ago, environmentalists were concerned with global cooling. There is no scientific "fact" that global warming is caused by humans. In fact, there are many scientists that refute the findings reported by IPCC. Their beliefs range from absolute denial to finding benefits to global warming. Many of these individuals have been shunned by the global warming climate gurus to the point of cruelty. All old points, though. See my sig'.

Timothy Ball, a former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, has received no less than five death threats since he voiced his skepticism on the matter. Sounds an awful lot like the way that communist countries treat those that speak out against their government.Not at all. The old, and present, communist countries jail and abuse their offenders, they don't sit around on their computers sending angry death threats while cursing under their breath. A Chinese national recently got ten years in jail for his hideous crime of helping foreign media cover the anniversary of the Tienanmen Square massacre when, can you believe it, Yahoo ratted on him:mad: But oh well, back to global warming.

Here are a few links to some video that I feel will be helpful [...] The Great Global Warming SwindleI find it frightening how many people have been swayed by that movie, considering that it uses largely uses logical fallacies and rhetoric to back up its viewpoints. And, of course, it's been rebutted more times that I can count - not that Wiki hasn't made a try (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_cri ticism), of course:).

Now, before you go flying off the handle, I was once a very gung-ho environmentalist and active animal rights activist. Heck, I'm even still a vegetarian. Are you that dedicated to environmental causes? All I ask is please open your mind to the other side of the debate.I do open my mind to both sides.

MdKnightR

07-24-2007, 02:39 PM

I find it frightening how many people have been swayed by that movie, considering that it uses largely uses logical fallacies and rhetoric to back up its viewpoints.

You mean like a Michael Moore shockumentary? ;)

Its interesting that you refer to what scientists on the other side of the debate have to say as "rhetoric" and "fallacy." I don't think that about scientists that believe in human affected global warming. I think there is enough contrary evidence for both sides to be convinced each is in the right. But saying that it is F-A-C-T is not true. There isn't enough empirical evidence to substantiate it as fact. I tend to believe that the jury is still out on the matter.

But, you still didn't answer one of my questions. Are you such an ardent environmentalist that you have foregone the consumption of animals as a food source? Afterall, animals are a very inefficient food source when you consider the tons of food and water they must be fed in order to produce a pound of food.

Dagobahn Eagle

07-24-2007, 04:21 PM

You mean like a Michael Moore shockumentary?No, far from it. Moore uses mostly gags and shock tactics. Global Warming Swindle uses rhetoric such as 'oh, the climate has always been changing' (which is a frighteningly blatant strawman as no one is denying climate change - it's that the changes are currently happening too quickly and causing too many problems such as droughts and natural disasters that is worrisome); or 'humans can't change the troposphere, it's too big' (argument from incredulity akin to my old 'it's impossible to destroy a whole city with a single bomb' metaphor); 'there were vineyards in England/skating on the Thames' (way too narrow view, which disregards that large parts of the world already are, and in the future will, suffer greatly from global warming - speaking of England, it's currently suffering from catastrophic floods), and so on.

Wait, strike that, I'm watching the documentary again and it seems my memory was off. The amount of rhetoric, ad hominem and other fallacies is far lower than I remembered. I guess they stood out so much that they are what stuck.

Its interesting that you refer to what scientists on the other side of the debate have to say as "rhetoric" and "fallacy." I don't think that about scientists that believe in human affected global warming.And the reason for that is probably that the scientists supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming don't rely on rhetoric and fallacies in the first place.

I think there is enough contrary evidence for both sides to be convinced each is in the right. But saying that it is F-A-C-T is not true. There isn't enough empirical evidence to substantiate it as fact. I tend to believe that the jury is still out on the matter.Not more than evolution is not considered a fact by scientists. However, the amount of evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming. The IPCC uses terms like 'virtually certain' and 'extremely likely' to describe their views - this is pretty much as close as they'll ever come to declaring that 'OK, this is a fact, case closed'. Ask a scientist if the Earth is round, he can't declare it a fact.

But, you still didn't answer one of my questions. Are you such an ardent environmentalist that you have foregone the consumption of animals as a food source? After all, animals are a very inefficient food source when you consider the tons of food and water they must be fed in order to produce a pound of food.The reason I didn't answer it is that it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion. This is another thing I've noticed from global warming-deniers: You all seem very, very interested in how much the rest of us are doing for the environment, and jump on every opportunity to discredit us as persons, rather than our arguments. What happened right after An Inconvenient Truth won not only one, but two Oscars? The right-wingers counterattacked not by shooting down the facts of the movie, but by accusing Al Gore of wasting power - as if this had any impact on his facts whatsoever. The Great Global Warming Swindle is one great example: It opens by telling you how these and those people are not scientists, how there's a political agenda behind the anti-global warming movement, and about how fear is being used as a tool.

How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

As a side note, take a look at this thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=174579&page=1&pp=40). It's about An Inconvenient Truth and contains some points from both sides.

Totenkopf

07-24-2007, 05:01 PM

How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

It's ultimately a question of credibility, DE. Sort of like the UN Human Rights Commision having key members from states that are flagrant abusers of such rights. Or, perhaps more to your liking, the altar boy scandals w/in the Catholic Church. It basically boils down to practice what you preach. If you really believe the things you say about anthropogenic global warming, then you have no business flying around in private jets or using tons of energy to heat/cool your "home". If the proponents of a position don't live/lead by example, why should anyone believe they are really telling the truth. It also doesn't help appearances for people like Gore when he's buying carbon credits from himself, essentially granting himself the right to pollute, while chastising others and gulling them into buying credits from his firm, thus enriching himself. And the fact that the pic won 2 Oscars is irrelevant in establishing whether there's any truth to the documentary.

Web Rider

07-24-2007, 07:27 PM

to completly ignore all this pointless Global Warming debate, we have something like this for Kern County(here in mid-california), but it only monitors the UV level and polllution level, which I might add, is worse than LA, for a city that doesn't top 400,000 people, thats scary.

MdKnightR

07-25-2007, 01:34 AM

Again, someone beat me to the punch! Thanks Totenkopf!

Not at all. The old, and present, communist countries jail and abuse their offenders, they don't sit around on their computers sending angry death threats while cursing under their breath.

Okay, I'll give you that. Maybe not the communist response. Its more like the way that Pro-Life extremists terrorize abortion clinics and doctors.....answering sin with sin. Is that a better analogy?

Wait, strike that, I'm watching the documentary again and it seems my memory was off. The amount of rhetoric, ad hominem and other fallacies is far lower than I remembered.

Thanks for reviewing and being so honest! ;)

And the reason for that is probably that the scientists supporting the idea of anthropogenic global warming don't rely on rhetoric and fallacies in the first place.

Ah.......nope. You're really making a stretch for that one.

The reason I didn't answer it is that it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion. This is another thing I've noticed from global warming-deniers: You all seem very, very interested in how much the rest of us are doing for the environment, and jump on every opportunity to discredit us as persons, rather than our arguments.....

....How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

As Totenkopf says, its a matter of "practice what you preach." I personally could care less whether you were a vegetarian or not. And your attempt to beat around the bush about it answered the question for you. ;)

Dagobahn Eagle

07-25-2007, 06:18 AM

As Totenkopf says, its a matter of "practice what you preach."We went through this in the Senate already. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=174579) Look, either something's true, or it isn't. To clarify, if two people state that the Earth is round, and one has a huge vested interest in doing so while the other is completely neutral, they're still both telling the truth.

And your attempt to beat around the bush about it answered the question for you. You're welcome to think so:).

And the fact that the pic won 2 Oscars is irrelevant in establishing whether there's any truth to the documentary.I didn't mean to say otherwise. The Oscar mention was to illustrate how good a reception the documentary was getting.

stoffe

07-25-2007, 06:52 AM

Mod note: Reminder - Less of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) and more about this (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2346472#postid=2346472) please. Thank you. :)

Dagobahn Eagle

07-30-2007, 09:16 AM

I just realized. The UK is currently going through the worst flood in 200 years. Enormous amounts of precipitation has fallen, leaving many without fresh water and flooding homes and buildings. People have gotten killed as a result of the flood. And all this time on the map, England has been, you guessed it, green or yellow.

Er, what:confused:?

Aash Li

07-30-2007, 10:16 AM

Umm... since you said Bush made the threat meter for terrorism, are you then admiting that the global warming nonsense meter is to scare people?

I see people whining about global warming all the time. But those with the loudest voices are sadly enough the ones that are contributing to this supposed calamity the most.

So, what are you doing to stop this "threat"?

Although if you really want to do something about warming the planet we should force a couple volcanoes to erupt, that will cool the planet down considerably. ^_^

How much I do for the environment is irrelevant. How much Al Gore does for the environment is irrelevant. What counts is cold, hard facts and empirical evidence.

Actually it is very relevant. As the other person said, its a matter of "pratice what you preach". How much credibility would you put in a religious figure if they told you not to drink to excess, not to have sex before marriage and not to abuse drugs, and then went out and did those very things? I would call them a hypocrite.

If youre so worried about the enviroment then you should start with yourself, rather than trying to force everyone else to change their ways. You lead by example not be dictate.

Look, either something's true, or it isn't. To clarify, if two people state that the Earth is round, and one has a huge vested interest in doing so while the other is completely neutral, they're still both telling the truth.

I think a better example would be one saying the earth is round, and the other flat... but I dunno as Galileo trying to get everyone to accept that the world isnt a giant pancake isnt quite the same as globalwarmingites trying to force their views on everyone. >_> But in the case of two people talking about the world being round, they have actual scientific proof that its round. As for global warming, I see no real proof anywhere that its happening. Besides a half of a degree over the last 100 years, when its already been documented that the solar system has cycles of warming and cooling...

And dont expect me to give out any sources because I dont keep a running bibliography. lol Thats what google is for. ;D

MdKnightR

07-30-2007, 03:22 PM

I just realized. The UK is currently going through the worst flood in 200 years. Enormous amounts of precipitation has fallen, leaving many without fresh water and flooding homes and buildings. People have gotten killed as a result of the flood. And all this time on the map, England has been, you guessed it, green or yellow.

Er, what:confused:?

I believe the proper term is http://intruderalert.com/cafe/images/emoticons/BS.gif

Oh, and Aash Li, as you can see in my previous posts, that is what I've been saying all along, but it hasn't done a lot of good to convince DE that he just might be wrong.

Totenkopf

07-30-2007, 04:06 PM

I just realized. The UK is currently going through the worst flood in 200 years. Enormous amounts of precipitation has fallen, leaving many without fresh water and flooding homes and buildings. People have gotten killed as a result of the flood. And all this time on the map, England has been, you guessed it, green or yellow.

Er, what:confused:?

So, are you trying to imply that the earth never had periods of massive flooding prior to the rise of man, or at least industrial era man? Where did all that flooding come from over 200 years ago (or even before that)?